From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Nov 28, 2017
6:09-CV-853 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2017)

Opinion

6:09-CV-853

11-28-2017

UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

APPEARANCES: SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff One South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60603 WILLIAMS LOPATTO PLLC Attorneys for Defendant 1707 L Street NW Suite 550 Washington, DC 20036 OF COUNSEL: WILLIAM M. SNEED, ESQ. THOMAS D. CUNNINGHAM, ESQ. JOHN B. WILLIAMS, ESQ. MARY A. LOPATTO, ESQ.


APPEARANCES: SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff
One South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60603 WILLIAMS LOPATTO PLLC
Attorneys for Defendant
1707 L Street NW
Suite 550
Washington, DC 20036 OF COUNSEL: WILLIAM M. SNEED, ESQ.
THOMAS D. CUNNINGHAM, ESQ. JOHN B. WILLIAMS, ESQ.
MARY A. LOPATTO, ESQ. DAVID N. HURD United States District Judge DECISION and ORDER

Plaintiff Utica Mutual Insurance Company and defendant Fireman's Fund Insurance Company have submitted the depositions of witnesses E. Barry Bradshaw and Gerald P. Konkel in advance of their use at trial in this matter. The parties have identified their designations, counter-designations, supplemental designations, and corresponding objections to those depositions. After reviewing the depositions and objections thereto, the following rulings are made with respect to all objections:

Those filings are docketed at ECF Nos. 377, 402, 410, and 417. To the extent any portion of the courtesy copies of the transcripts (with color coded designations, cross-designations, and objections) are inconsistent with the aforementioned court filings, the court filings have been treated as controlling for purposes of this decision. --------

E. Barry Bradshaw

5/12/2014


Plaintiff's Designations

Defendant's Objections

99:9-100:7

Sustained

103:17-104:17

Overruled

105:19-24

Overruled

106:3-107:12

Overruled

107:16-109:19

Overruled

110:6-13

Overruled

110:21-113:11

Overruled

113:15-117:17

Overruled

Defendant's Counter-Designations

Plaintiff's Objections

18:19-22

Sustained

24:22-25:21

Sustained

26:10-15

Sustained

40:19-25

Sustained

41:20-42:6

Sustained

85:20-86:10

Sustained

88:23-89:2

Sustained

91:14-15

Sustained

92:13-93:4

Overruled

121:7-13

Overruled


E. Barry Bradshaw

6/12/2008

Defendant's initial response (ECF No. 402) to plaintiff's designations of Bradshaw's 6/12/2008 deposition included no specific objections or counter-designations, but rather a general objection to the use of this deposition under Federal Rule of Evidence 804 and an objection based on irrelevance. However, in a courtesy copy submitted to the Court on 11/28/17 in advance of the Bradshaw testimony being read into the record, defendant has lodged the following two specific objections:

Plaintiff's Designations

Defendant's Objections

24:19-25:7

Overruled

26:2-5

Overruled


Gerald P. Konkel

3/31/2014


Plaintiff's Designations

Defendant's Objections

63:9-64:6

Sustained

71:14-16

Sustained

71:21-72:15

Sustained

72:20-73:2

Sustained

95:3-97:22

Sustained

147:18-148:5

Sustained

149:7-150:1

Sustained

156:2-157:1

Sustained

158:7-18

Sustained

160:22-162:8

Sustained

Defendant's Counter-Designations

Plaintiff's Objections

20:13-18

Overruled

20:21-21:6

Overruled

73:2-5

Sustained

80:11-19

Overruled

83:13-16

Overruled

86:10-14, 18-22

Overruled

90:21-91:22

Overruled

93:20-94:6

Overruled

150:8-13

Sustained

The parties are directed to conform the deposition testimony in accordance with this decision. An updated courtesy copy for the Court is not needed.

Going forward, as the parties identify deposition testimony to be used the following day at trial, they are directed to confer and produce one courtesy copy for the Court which identifies (in the same color coded manner as was done with Bradshaw and Konkel) the parties' designations and all objections thereto.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/_________

United States District Judge Dated: November 28, 2017

Utica, New York.


Summaries of

Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Nov 28, 2017
6:09-CV-853 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2017)
Case details for

Utica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:UTICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Nov 28, 2017

Citations

6:09-CV-853 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 28, 2017)